Back 'newspaper articles' index.

The words ‘good sense’ are not be used in the same sentence by anybody describing the act of smoking for smoking and good sense are mutually exclusive in short a smoker; any smoker is not exhibiting good sense.

The crux of the matter is, is she or he aware that it is not good sense to smoke? Are they aware of the 4,000-plus hazardous chemicals they inhale with every puff? Moreover, even if they have heard that these chemicals are present in tobacco, do they believe these scientifically proven facts? Alternatively, do they just feel that these are more scare tactics by the scaremongers, the moral brigade who merely like raining on everybody’s parade and spoiling the fun?

However, it is this understanding of the very real dangers inherent in smoking or the failure to do so which is the underpinning issue when we talk about making informed choices.

I talk from experience as I smoked for 27 years a habit I picked up in 1974 while in form one to look more mature and impress girls. It was like a rite of passage for me, an initiation into adulthood and the unwritten permission to sample previously forbidden pleasures.

Never mind that the first experience of smoke searing my lungs and getting me into a horrible retching coughing spasm would be suffice to discourage the most dedicated, determined smoker wannabe. Oh no, I would pass this test or die trying.

Yet I did not know that there was a very real possibility of dying and not by trying but by succeeding in becoming a fully-fledged smoker. Nevertheless, we were not aware of any risks apart from being caught by an adult, either in school or at home.

Many years later having been completely snagged by the nicotine in cigarettes, I was to make the first of thousands of subsequent vows to quit. Every time the annual budget raised the price of cigarettes, we swore that this was it, no more. Every time I woke up coughing fit to raise the dead, my chest wracked in painful paroxysms I again forswore smoking. My nails and teeth turned yellow and still I smoked. I was a hopeless addict.

Boy but how I could argue in defense of not only cigarettes but of smoking. In those days, we smoked any and everywhere. We smoked in buses, in cinema theatres, restaurants, offices – everywhere. Nobody complained at least not that I can recall. We were ignorant. We had made an uniformed choice. Many of us are no longer around to tell the tale. Still others carry the horrifying ‘medals’ of ex-smokers, amputated limbs, oxygen tubes, hoarse barely audible voices – cancer!

On reading Wanja Kiano’s piece (‘Why adult smokers are not pawns’ The People Daily Friday June 23, 2006) I was instantly reminded of words like ‘denial, uniformed choice’ and how an addict even when the whole world knows they are addicted still find something or someone to pin their reason for using on.

She says that she has "selected a lifestyle choice that draws such wrath. You see, I am an adult smoker.&quo; She goes on to say she has the &quo;good sense" not to smoke around infants, supports minimum age for smoking blah, blah finally lamenting that the "lobbyists" don’t see this.

Wanja wails, "there are persons out there who enjoy a good smoke and know that the habit could affect their health." Could affect? Every smoker’s health, I repeat every smoker’s health is affected. The effects might not be visible (elevated blood pressure, ulcers, increased heart rate) but they are there. Others of course are obvious, the coughs, yellowing nails and teeth, bad breath, smelly clothes and of course withdrawal symptoms for those addicted.

Furthermore if indeed Wanja is completely aware of the effects of smoking on her health then she is in the minority for the average Joe out their in developing countries such as ours hasn’t the foggiest idea of what is going on. That is why the tobacco companies have shifted literally relocating themselves from the developing countries where the laws now take cognizance of the overwhelming risks to one’s like Kenya where ignorance still is the order of the day. Where those who should no better have often been compromised to turn a blind eye.

On her support for the minimum age, is there really any correct age for smoking? This makes believe that either Wanja is one of those professionals (journalists, doctors, lawyers) that companies like British American Tobacco give ‘second salaries’ to front for them or she is one of the those smokers who are on vaguely aware about the risks of tobacco but very definite when it comes to seeing the positive side of using. Indeed, they will always only see the positive side to justify their continued use.

Sadly, even as Wanja gleefully argues about “lifestyle choice” it only displays further ignorance for in addiction there is no longer ‘choice’. In fact, terms like "lifestyle choice" are catch phrases long used by the tobacco industry to help them steer past the rocky shoals of addiction that their product can and does cause. After all, it is a drug and the word drug does not sit to well with healthy "lifestyle" choices.

As a woman the tragedy continues to unfold for her even as she engages in what she obviously feels are quite clever semantics for as the "lobbyists" and the tobacco industry argue they are mostly not smoking (how many of BAT Kenya, Mastermind Tobacco or Cut Tobacco’s top management smoke?) her body is the pawn in this game of Titans clashing.

Wanja’s lungs and body are ravaged by these chemicals and if she gets pregnant and continues to smoke the baby will really suffer as they share the same 7quot;ventilation". There is also a very real possibility that by the time she does want to get pregnant she might not be able to as a result of another smoke related ‘medal’.

She might want to chew on this next fact slowly to be able to make an “informed” decision about her “lifestyle choices”. The smoke enters her lungs. She is the guinea pig even if there was a possibility by even the wildest stretch of imagination in this day and age to argue that cigarette smoking does not maim and kill. So what if she later ‘discovers’ that the "lobbyists" were right?

Do not hold your breath Wanja. For according to the tobacco conglomerates own internal documents which millions of which they have been forced to release they have lied, yes LIED about the harmful effects of their drug for years. Not the lobbyists, or ex-smoker David Ogot but the BAT’s of this world.

Why would you want to continue being a pawn in a game with a liar? For if you believe they are not liars just look at what they are doing here? Checkmate!

David Ogot is the Programmes Director of the goinghomedotcom Trust a media NGO specializing in drug abuse awareness. A recovering alcoholic he can be reached at goinghomedotcom@yahoo.com Website: www.goinghomekenya.org

Back to top

This site is designed by David Ogot snr. and hosted by
Science & Engineering Research Center
©goinghomedotcom 2001 - 2007
Disclaimer Privacy Policy